Greater North Sea

Assessment sheet for Greater North Sea sub-region and for five subdivisions

Greater North Sea

Summary

The physical disturbance pressures from mobile bottom-contacting fishing gears varies spatially in the North Sea region with 91% of the grid cells (I-2), and 62% of the surface area (I-3), in the depth zone 0-200m, being fished on average per year for the period 2013-2018 (Table 1). Fishing is aggregated with 90% of the pressure occurring in 41% of grid cells (I-4). The PD method shows an average decline in community biomass of 11% relative to carrying capacity across c-squares (I-6). Most c-squares, 82% (I-7), have an impact score less than 20%.

The L1 method, estimating the proportion of the community with a life span exceeding the time interval between trawling events, shows an average impact of 0.66 across c-squares (I-6). Only 21% (I-7) of the c-squares have impact scores less than 20% (I-7).

Maps of spatial distribution of intensity, sensitivity and economic value and weight of fisheries landings are shown in Figure 1.

All pressure and impact estimates are for areas < 200 meter depth as there is no longevity prediction for deeper regions.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	2.09
Proportion of cells fished (I-2)	0.91
Proportion of area fished (I-3)	0.62
Aggregation of fishing pressure (I-4)	0.41
Persistently unfished areas (I-5)	0.09
Average PD impact	0.11
Average L1 impact	0.66
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.82
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.21

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

The distribution of fishing intensity in the Greater North Sea has a strong spatial variation (Figure 2). Areas of higher intensity occur in the northern North Sea along the edge of the Norwegian Trench and in the eastern English Channel. Areas with lower intensity occur in the western part of the North Sea, and in the deeper parts of the Norwegian trench.

The proportion of area subject to fishing pressure differs between broad-scale habitats and is highest in offshore circalittoral mud (99% of grid cells fished) and circalittoral sand (97% of grid cells fished) (Table 2). Fishing intensity is highest in upper bathyal sediment (average intensity = 5.61 year-1) and offshore circalittoral mud (average intensity = 3.24 year-1).

Total fishing intensity has increased since 2016 (Figure 3). There was a large peak in intensity in offshore circalittoral mud in 2016. Fishing intensity is relatively stable over time in circalittoral sand and offshore circalittoral coarse sediment. The area within which fishing occurred (footprint) showed less variations in time (except for a decline in 2017). This shows that the overall increase in intensity has not affected the spatial distribution of the footprint much (Figure 3, middle panel).

Fishing pressure is aggregated in a relatively small part of the total footprint, both at the regional level as well as at the level of the habitat (Figure 3, right panel). 90% of the effort occurred in between about a third and half of the area. The intensively fished areas represent the ‘core fishing grounds’. These grounds contribute most of the landings and value (Figure 4). Almost 70% of the fishing effort (swept area) and 60% of the landings and value, occur in only 20% of the surface area of the Greater North Sea (Figure 4, red dot).

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of grid cells fished I 2	Prop of area fished I 3	Prop of habitat fished with 90 of effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand	241.39	14140	283.11	255.58	435.46	1.86	0.92	0.58	0.40
Offshore circalittoral mud	108.69	6475	148.37	163.19	347.45	3.24	0.99	0.86	0.58
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	77.13	4184	78.20	142.33	211.83	2.65	0.95	0.60	0.36
Circalittoral sand	68.43	3794	160.33	151.29	125.38	1.82	0.97	0.72	0.53
Circalittoral coarse sediment	30.00	1598	25.59	40.36	43.38	1.41	0.84	0.42	0.28
Unknown	27.64	1583	10.71	36.41	22.21	0.78	0.50	0.26	0.17
Infralittoral sand	12.75	713	19.86	36.83	18.43	1.40	0.72	0.52	0.38
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	7.27	411	4.40	9.37	16.16	2.23	0.95	0.63	0.42
Circalittoral mud	5.59	310	6.93	13.59	11.07	1.92	0.89	0.62	0.43
Circalittoral mixed sediment	4.70	267	3.54	3.42	3.85	0.84	0.87	0.41	0.38
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.45	217	0.34	0.97	2.97	0.83	0.52	0.31	0.22
Infralittoral coarse sediment	3.08	161	5.82	7.98	4.36	1.41	0.89	0.59	0.46
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	2.57	144	0.55	1.08	0.98	0.38	0.72	0.19	0.21
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.41	81	0.27	0.62	0.39	0.29	0.53	0.10	0.09
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.39	81	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.42	0.02	0.20
Infralittoral mud	1.37	77	0.62	1.71	1.31	0.85	0.30	0.24	0.16
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	0.39	25	0.01	0.00	0.29	0.72	0.36	0.22	0.16
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	0.33	22	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.05	0.09	0.05	0.05
Upper bathyal sediment	0.14	9	0.53	0.05	0.81	5.61	0.89	0.78	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

In this analysis, core fishing grounds are defined as the c-squares with the 90% highest value of landings in the VMS data. Figure 5 below show the percent distribution of the number of years c-squares are within the 90% highest value by metier. If fishing in a metier occurs in the same c-square every year with high value of landings, the bar at the right will be high, meaning that the c-square is within the 90% highest value of landings every year during the period 2013-2018. If a c-square is only within the 90% highest value in one year, it will end up in the bar at the left. The fisheries for small pelagic fish generally have a high variation in space.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Fishing by métier

Intensity, weight and value of landings were estimated for the grid cells that were fished by one MBCG métier, ignoring cells fished by other métiers (Table 3). The métier with the highest landings and value per area fished is the beam trawl fishery for whelks, snails and scallop (TBB_MOL) but note that only a very small area has been fished by this métier. The seines (SDN_DMF and SSC_DMF) have the lowest landings and value per area fished. This is followed by otter trawls that target crustaceans (OT_CRU).

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	9.71	142.95	521.69	31.57	12.99	146.33	216.68	55.04	109.38	0.02
Landings (1000 tonnes)	44.87	16.39	482.47	12.99	69.00	8.80	22.26	26.09	64.55	1.80
Value (10^6 euro)	104.18	73.50	245.18	32.01	16.38	17.14	44.35	94.54	235.03	2.47
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	4.62	0.11	0.92	0.41	5.31	0.06	0.10	0.47	0.59	87.42
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	10.73	0.51	0.47	1.01	1.26	0.12	0.20	1.72	2.15	119.84

Impact

The impact of mobile bottom-contacting fishing from the PD method shows the areas of highest fishing impact along the slopes of the Norwegian trench in the Skagerrak and western Norway and in the eastern English Channel (note the 200m depth limit in this assessment) (Figure 7, left). High impact areas are also seen along the continental coast of the North Sea, in the southern North Sea and Kattegat. High impact from the L1 method covers a much larger area (Figure 7, right) that largely mimics the map of fishing intensity.

The impact scores of the PD and L1 method are largely constant over time (Figure 8, left panel). Impact varies between habitats (Figure 8 shows the four most extensive habitat types). Of these four habitat types, impact is highest in offshore circalittoral mud and lowest in offshore circalittoral sand. Between 50-80% of each habitat type has a PD impact score <0.2, whereas only 10-40% of each habitat type has an L1 impact score <0.2.

The different métiers were assessed for the grid cells that were fished by one MBCG métier, ignoring cells fished by other métiers (Table 4). As such this estimates the maximum impact compared to the untrawled situation and the impact estimated assuming all other métiers to have impacted the habitat will be less than this. The métier with the highest impact (PD and L1) relative to the value and landings is the otter trawl fishery for crustaceans (OT_CRU). The beam trawl fishery for whelks, snails and scallop (TBB_MOL) has the lowest impact per value and landings but note that only a very small area has been fished by this métier (Table 3).

Métiers differ in their habitat association and impact on each habitat type (Figure 9). Fishing impact on mud is dominated by the otter trawl fishery (OT_CRU and OT_DMF). Beam trawl impact mostly occurs in circalittoral sand. For the three most dominant metiers (OT_CRU, OT_DMF and TBB_DMF), changes in impact over time are limited; there is some decline in impact scores by the otter trawl fishery on crustaceans (OT_CRU) in mud since 2010 (not shown). The two impact indicators are showing similar qualitative patterns but qualitatively differ in predicted impact of OT_CRU and OT_DMF. These differences arise as the PD method uses a four times larger depletion rate for OT_CRU compared with OT_DMF due to a larger gear penetration depth, whereas the L1 method assumes that all fauna are sensitive to bottom trawl disturbance (independent of the gear penetration depth).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 8

Figure 8. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	0.33	0.02	0.41	0.08	3.31	0.07	0.08	0.14	0.06	8.28
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	0.77	0.07	0.21	0.20	0.80	0.14	0.16	0.49	0.23	11.35
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.06	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.08	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.01	1.41
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	0.13	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.08	0.04	1.94

Figure 9

Figure 9. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Northern North Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	2.26
Proportion of cells fished (I-2)	0.92
Proportion of area fished (I-3)	0.59
Aggregation of fishing pressure (I-4)	0.38
Persistently unfished areas (I-5)	0.08
Average PD impact	0.09
Average L1 impact	0.62
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.88
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.22

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of grid cells fished I 2	Prop of area fished I 3	Prop of habitat fished with 90 of effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand	166.72	10031	173.30	119.89	317.00	1.97	0.89	0.51	0.33
Offshore circalittoral mud	68.70	4200	99.72	94.67	245.54	3.62	0.99	0.86	0.57
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	26.12	1574	28.56	14.95	29.32	1.17	0.92	0.42	0.33
Circalittoral sand	5.10	304	10.18	9.09	16.78	3.31	0.93	0.71	0.48
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	2.25	135	1.68	3.58	6.63	3.05	0.96	0.62	0.39
Unknown	1.81	109	0.11	0.42	0.51	0.29	0.39	0.12	0.10
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.79	48	0.18	0.44	0.27	0.35	0.85	0.14	0.23
Circalittoral mud	0.75	44	0.04	0.14	0.28	0.38	0.80	0.29	0.32
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.69	41	1.59	1.00	1.75	2.56	0.88	0.53	0.34
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.65	39	0.09	0.37	0.32	0.49	0.90	0.33	0.38
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.46	28	0.06	0.50	0.65	1.42	0.96	0.43	0.32
Infralittoral sand	0.30	18	0.04	0.07	0.21	0.69	0.56	0.20	NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.28	17	0.03	0.22	0.22	0.82	0.82	0.22	NA
Infralittoral mud	0.07	4	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.05	3	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.33	0.00	NA
Upper bathyal sediment	0.05	3	0.51	0.04	0.65	13.53	1.00	1.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	1.88	58.11	339.59	1.62	3.43	114.41	97.38	0.01	3.70	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	2.69	9.04	265.84	0.31	15.29	5.93	12.92	0.00	4.06	0
Value (10^6 euro)	6.29	37.32	154.39	1.27	2.59	10.28	25.42	0.01	7.81	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	1.43	0.16	0.78	0.19	4.46	0.05	0.13	0.44	1.10	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	3.35	0.64	0.45	0.78	0.75	0.09	0.26	0.90	2.11	NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 8

Figure 8. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	0.09	0.02	0.34	0.03	4.38	0.06	0.09	0.07	0.06	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	0.22	0.09	0.20	0.12	0.80	0.11	0.18	0.15	0.12	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.01	0.01	0.03	0.00	0.09	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	NA

Figure 9

Figure 9. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Kattegat

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	1.17
Proportion of cells fished (I-2)	0.61
Proportion of area fished (I-3)	0.36
Aggregation of fishing pressure (I-4)	0.26
Persistently unfished areas (I-5)	0.39
Average PD impact	0.17
Average L1 impact	0.40
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.71
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.55

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of grid cells fished I 2	Prop of area fished I 3	Prop of habitat fished with 90 of effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral mud	8.25	487	3.95	17.38	24.08	2.93	0.94	0.78	0.60
Infralittoral sand	4.14	244	0.07	0.09	0.13	0.03	0.28	0.03	0.08
Unknown	3.31	193	0.03	0.04	0.15	0.05	0.15	0.04	0.06
Offshore circalittoral sand	3.15	184	1.03	1.50	2.20	0.71	0.84	0.31	0.26
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	1.33	78	0.20	0.71	1.06	0.80	0.82	0.33	0.26
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.26	74	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.39	0.01	0.18
Infralittoral mud	0.82	48	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Circalittoral mud	0.69	41	0.37	0.85	0.96	1.41	0.66	0.55	0.44
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.61	36	0.26	0.32	0.43	0.71	0.83	0.35	0.31
Circalittoral sand	0.49	29	0.05	0.08	0.09	0.19	0.45	0.11	0.17
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.46	27	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.03	0.52	0.03	0.22
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.17	10	0.03	0.04	0.03	0.16	0.40	0.11	NA
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.12	7	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.43	0.02	NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.08	5	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.08	0.80	0.08	NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	3	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.49	0.67	0.34	NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.02	1	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.91	1.00	0.91	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	22.82	5.29	0	0.30	0.76	0.05	0.00	0.00	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	2.50	1.80	0	1.49	0.22	0.00	0.00	0.00	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	17.73	2.61	0	0.37	0.35	0.00	0.00	0.00	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NA	0.11	0.34	NA	5.04	0.29	0.00	0.66	0.40	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NA	0.78	0.49	NA	1.24	0.46	0.00	3.37	1.02	NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 8

Figure 8. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	NA	0.01	0.09	NA	2.37	0.19	0	0.12	0.04	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	NA	0.07	0.13	NA	0.58	0.30	0	0.60	0.10	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	NA	0.00	0.00	NA	0.03	0.02	0	0.02	0.00	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	NA	0.03	0.01	NA	0.01	0.03	0	0.12	0.01	NA

Figure 9

Figure 9. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Southern North Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	1.60
Proportion of cells fished (I-2)	0.96
Proportion of area fished (I-3)	0.71
Aggregation of fishing pressure (I-4)	0.55
Persistently unfished areas (I-5)	0.04
Average PD impact	0.13
Average L1 impact	0.77
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.78
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.13

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of grid cells fished I 2	Prop of area fished I 3	Prop of habitat fished with 90 of effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand	68.81	3784	99.08	119.49	96.23	1.39	0.99	0.75	0.63
Circalittoral sand	58.31	3232	146.07	130.60	92.60	1.58	0.98	0.72	0.57
Offshore circalittoral mud	29.35	1640	41.99	49.02	71.78	2.44	1.00	0.91	0.67
Circalittoral coarse sediment	16.53	917	14.61	12.17	11.48	0.70	0.78	0.37	0.34
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	14.14	763	11.06	25.72	24.92	1.74	0.93	0.57	0.40
Unknown	9.50	514	9.57	34.10	15.78	1.67	0.84	0.53	0.36
Infralittoral sand	6.85	378	18.13	32.49	14.26	2.08	0.97	0.80	0.61
Circalittoral mud	3.32	181	6.04	11.21	7.58	2.24	0.97	0.73	0.51
Circalittoral mixed sediment	3.00	171	1.89	2.27	1.90	0.64	0.93	0.46	0.50
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	1.85	105	1.34	2.30	2.53	1.38	0.99	0.70	0.59
Infralittoral coarse sediment	1.11	62	1.13	0.87	1.74	1.57	0.97	0.81	0.68
Infralittoral mud	0.20	11	0.11	0.42	0.23	1.09	0.91	0.59	NA
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.10	5	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.05	1.00	0.05	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0.25	50.90	86.55	0.91	3.65	10.30	40.84	55.02	92.58	0.02
Landings (1000 tonnes)	12.91	4.17	194.77	0.43	49.54	1.00	3.72	26.08	56.81	1.60
Value (10^6 euro)	19.61	16.97	53.50	1.18	10.38	2.31	6.45	94.50	213.45	2.31
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	52.51	0.08	2.25	0.47	13.56	0.10	0.09	0.47	0.61	106.17
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	79.79	0.33	0.62	1.30	2.84	0.22	0.16	1.72	2.31	153.46

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 8

Figure 8. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	4.08	0.01	1.04	0.11	13.08	0.12	0.09	0.14	0.07	20.38
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	6.20	0.05	0.29	0.29	2.74	0.28	0.15	0.49	0.26	29.46
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.90	0.00	0.05	0.01	0.14	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.01	1.64
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	1.36	0.01	0.01	0.03	0.03	0.01	0.00	0.08	0.04	2.38

Figure 9

Figure 9. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

English Channel

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	3.46
Proportion of cells fished (I-2)	0.95
Proportion of area fished (I-3)	0.64
Aggregation of fishing pressure (I-4)	0.38
Persistently unfished areas (I-5)	0.05
Average PD impact	0.16
Average L1 impact	0.69
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.71
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.20

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of grid cells fished I 2	Prop of area fished I 3	Prop of habitat fished with 90 of effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	36.25	1811	38.32	101.33	157.16	4.36	1.00	0.75	0.45
Circalittoral coarse sediment	12.71	635	10.88	27.81	31.59	2.50	0.94	0.48	0.27
Circalittoral sand	4.53	229	4.04	11.52	15.90	3.49	0.96	0.74	0.45
Unknown	4.52	224	0.87	1.84	1.73	0.38	0.64	0.15	0.12
Offshore circalittoral sand	2.32	117	4.82	13.74	15.26	6.58	1.00	0.97	0.68
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	1.82	92	1.18	2.78	5.93	3.25	1.00	0.79	0.57
Infralittoral coarse sediment	1.74	86	4.67	7.07	2.60	1.48	0.92	0.51	0.37
Infralittoral sand	1.47	73	1.62	4.19	3.83	2.61	0.93	0.69	0.49
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.27	64	0.36	0.63	0.51	0.40	0.81	0.24	0.30
Circalittoral mud	0.63	32	0.48	1.38	2.02	3.15	1.00	0.63	0.34
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.59	29	0.24	0.40	0.05	0.09	0.66	0.09	0.28
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.53	27	0.05	0.14	0.19	0.36	0.85	0.29	0.41
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.30	15	0.14	0.46	0.25	0.84	1.00	0.36	NA
Infralittoral mud	0.26	13	0.51	1.28	1.08	4.11	0.92	0.80	NA
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.22	11	0.30	0.95	1.54	7.01	1.00	1.00	NA
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.04	2	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	7.59	1.77	84.34	29.05	4.90	20.84	78.05	0.01	13.09	0.01
Landings (1000 tonnes)	29.27	0.09	14.07	12.24	1.71	1.65	5.59	0.00	3.68	0.20
Value (10^6 euro)	78.28	0.70	33.37	29.56	3.05	4.20	12.43	0.03	13.76	0.16
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	3.86	0.05	0.17	0.42	0.35	0.08	0.07	0.32	0.28	36.68
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	10.32	0.40	0.40	1.02	0.62	0.20	0.16	2.24	1.05	28.90

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 8

Figure 8. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	0.28	0.01	0.09	0.08	0.14	0.09	0.07	0.04	0.03	1.46
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	0.76	0.05	0.21	0.20	0.25	0.23	0.15	0.28	0.11	1.15
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.05	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.67
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	0.14	0.00	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.05	0.02	0.53

Figure 9

Figure 9. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Norwegian Trench

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	1.34
Proportion of cells fished (I-2)	0.43
Proportion of area fished (I-3)	0.28
Aggregation of fishing pressure (I-4)	0.17
Persistently unfished areas (I-5)	0.57
Average PD impact	NA
Average L1 impact	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of grid cells fished I 2	Prop of area fished I 3	Prop of habitat fished with 90 of effort I 4
Upper bathyal sediment	61.67	3930	42.85	26.13	109.36	1.73	0.56	0.37	0.22
Unknown	23.60	1521	0.18	0.00	4.77	0.19	0.13	0.06	0.04
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.72	241	0.14	0.00	2.61	0.67	0.34	0.24	0.17
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	2.45	160	0.06	0.00	0.71	0.28	0.16	0.11	0.08
Offshore circalittoral mud	2.32	147	3.14	1.83	6.35	2.66	0.80	0.54	0.33
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	2.30	149	0.13	0.00	1.94	0.80	0.24	0.21	0.13
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.79	51	0.00	0.00	0.18	0.21	0.16	0.08	0.06
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.67	43	0.00	0.00	0.15	0.22	0.21	0.08	0.07
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.41	25	4.96	0.95	4.93	12.00	0.84	0.84	0.68
Circalittoral mud	0.19	12	0.01	0.00	0.22	1.12	0.58	0.33	NA
Infralittoral mud	0.02	1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.18	1.00	0.18	NA
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.02	1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.02	1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.30	1.00	0.30	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	72.34	50.81	0.00	5.63	0.23	2.20	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	6.92	20.12	0.01	24.28	0.03	0.13	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	19.72	8.90	0.00	0.03	0.06	0.21	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NA	0.10	0.40	1.56	4.31	0.15	0.06	NA	0	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NA	0.27	0.18	0.00	0.01	0.26	0.09	NA	0	NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios